social change in the forth dynasty the spatial organitation of pyramids tombs and cementeries JARCE 30

Social Change in the Fourth Dynasty: The Spatial Organization of Pyramids, Tombs, and Cemeteries Author(s): Ann Macy Roth Source: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 30 (1993), pp. 33-55 Published by: American Research Center in Egypt Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40000226 . Accessed: 18/06/2011 09:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=arce. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Research Center in Egypt is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt.

http://www.jstor.org

Social Change in the Fourth Dynasty: The Spatial Organization of Pyramids,Tombs, and Cemeteries Ann Macy Roth The advent of the Fourth Dynasty of pharaonic Egypt marked a radical break with the first three dynasties. This break is most visible in the new shape of the era's most substantial archaeological remains, the royal pyramidsand their surrounding mortuary complexes (see fig. 1). In the Third Dynasty,royal tombs took the form of stepped pyramids, surrounded by dummy buildings and enclosed in a rectangle of high, niched walls, with its long axis northsouth. During the reign of Snefru, royal tombs became true pyramids of vastly increased size, built at the western end of a complex of new components and proportions, which extended in an east-west line from the border of the cultivation. Egyptologists have long ascribed these changes to social and religious developments. J. H. Breasted suggested that the increasing importance of the sun-cult of Re at Heliopolis led to the adoption of a tomb nearer in shape to the bnbnstone associated with that cult.1 I. E. S. Edwardsadvocated a more direct relationship to mortuarybeliefs, viewing the pyramid as the solidified rays of the sun and citing Pyr. 523: "Heaven has strengthened for you the rays of the sun, in order that you may lift yourself to heaven as the eye of Re."2 He also attributed the new east-westaxis to an increasing solar orientation. B. Kemp, describing the pyramid of Meydum,suggested a change in the theological and social role of the king: "In place of a tomb which celebrated the king as supreme territorial claimant and perpetuated his earthly pag-

eantry, the new-style pyramids proclaimed his absorption into the mystic symbol of the sun. The tiny offering-temple was the principal gesture to his human aspect.' R. Stadelmann viewed the pyramidsin more political terms, as monuments that both expressed and enforced the universal claims of royal power. The new mortuary architecture, he suggested, was a simplification and abstraction of older forms, responding to growth in that power and to changes in cultic requirements. The cemeteries of officials that surrounded these pyramids add yet another dimension to the analysis.D. O'Connor has observed that, if the sizes of tombs represent the comparative power of the tomb owners, the gigantic pyramids of Giza surrounded by small private tombs can be seen as a visual metaphor for the centralized organization of the Old Kingdom state, in which the immense power of the king dwarfed and dominated the people surrounding him. Since textual sources for the Fourth Dynasty and the preceding period are few and enigmatic, the primarysupport for these analyses is the architecture and spatial organization of the Fourth Dynasty pyramid complex itself. These analysesof mortuaryspace are, however, largely impressionistic and based on intuitive assumptions about the meaning of space and architectural forms. Moreover, they are based on the 3 Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization (New York, 1989), 63, caption to fig. 21. R. Stadelmann, Die dgyptischenPyramiden:vom Ziegelbau zum Weltwunder(Mainz am Rhein, 1985), 80. David O'Connor, "Political systems and archaeological data in Egypt: 2600-1780 B.C.," WorldArchaeology6 (1984), 19-21.

J. H. Breasted, The Developmentof Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt(New York, 1912), 72. I. E. S. Edwards, The Pyramids of Egypt, rev. ed. (Harmondworth, 1985), 277-78 (translation slightly modified).

33

34

JARCEXXX (1993)

Fig. 1. The StepPyramid complex,at left (afterEdwards, Pyramids of Egypt, p. 35), is the bestpreservedof thepre-Fourth dynastymortuarycomplexes.TheFourth dynastycomplexin its simplestform is representedat right by the reconstructedMeydum pyramid complex.(The drawing here is partially based on the reconstructionof Kemp,Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, p. 63.) (Not drawn to the same scale.)

examination of only a limited subset of mortuary architecture. Private tomb architecture and cemetery organization also changed considerably, if less abruptly, during the same period, and this larger context has not been considered in seeking explanations for the new architectural forms adopted by kings. SpatialAnalysis In recent years, archaeologists have increasingly applied formal techniques of spatial analysis to the interpretation of cultural remains. One useful concept of this type is access analysis,which focuses on the ease or difficulty with which people move through buildings and into important rooms. Techniques have been developed that allow buildings to be more easily compared, including the reduction of plans to "justifiedaccess maps' and formulas for com6 For details of this method, see Bob Hillier and Julienne Hanson, The SocialLogicof Space(Cambridge, 1984). Sally Foster,"Analysisof spatialpatternsin buildings(accessanalysis) as an insight into social structure:examples from the Scottish Iron Age," Antiquity63 (1989), 40-50; and Henry Glassie, Folk Housing in Middle Virginia:a structuralanalysis of

historicartifacts(Knoxville,Tennessee, 1975)were among the firstto applythis method to archaeologicalspaces.

paring quantitativemeasurements. Despite the objective appearance of the results these techniques yield, their application often requires subjectivejudgments. (It is not alwaysclear, for example, what constitutes a "room.")Moreover, these techniques have principally been applied to houses, and their usefulness in analyzing symbolic spaces, such as mortuary or religious buildings, is less well established. For an initial application of spatial analysis to early Old Kingdom mortuary architecture, these difficulties can be avoided by using a comparative approach, relating changes in the accessibility of mortuary architecture to the relatively static patterns in contemporary nonmortuaryspaces. Based loosely on the same criteria as the more quantitative approach, such comparisons allow distinctively Egyptian spatial patterns and architecturalforms to be considered. Although this approach is explicitly For a surveyof a variety of quantitativemethods, see John Chapman, "SocialInequalityon BulgarianTells and the Varna Problem," The Social Archaeologyof Houses, Ross

Samson, ed. (Edinburgh,1990), 49-92; the following essay, FrankE. Brown,"Commenton Chapman:Some Cautionary notes on the application of spatial measures to prehistoric settlements,"ibid., 93-109, points out some problemswith this approach.

SOCIAL CHANGE IN THE FOURTH subjective, it is justified by the sharpness of the contrasts it produces. These contrasts can then be compared with the surviving inscriptional evidence to suggest the nature of the changes in the system of religious and social beliefs that underlay the new mortuary architecture. The principle of access analysis that I have adopted here is the distinction between "open" and "closed" plans in buildings. Open buildings tend to be readily navigable by strangers; they can be entered easily and their internal organization is immediately apparent. The function and position of their important rooms are often obvious from the exterior, and the paths to reach them are both short and direct. Axial and symmetrical plans tend to result in open buildings, as do plans with many entrances. Public or communally-used spaces often have open and are they plans, especially common in communities where strangers are either rare or assumed to be friendly, in egalitarian societies, and in cultures that place a low value on privacy. Closed plans, on the other hand, separate the most important rooms from the entrance by distance, by tortuous pathways, and by constricted or guarded doorways, so that strangers have difficulty entering the building and negotiating its interior spaces. Greater "closedness" occurs in societies and in buildings where classes social of control, separation privacy, or sexes, and protection from strangers are considered important. Not only can the principles of access analysis be applied to individual buildings, but entire sites can be viewed in terms of their spatial organization. On this level, such questions as the distance between buildings, the regularity of their orientation, and the ease of access to different parts of the site and the site as a whole are considered. This analysis involves linear of buildings comparing arrangements and judging the with clustered arrangements, or has a degree to which a site is homogeneous central focus. (Such broader factors should always be considered, since the degree of access to a site as a whole may explain anomalous access patterns in the individual buildings within it.) Arrangements of buildings within a site can also be compared temporally, to find patterns of site growth and to determine whether newer

DYNASTY

35

buildings are mixed with or segregated from older structures. Like spatial patterns in individual buildings, spatial patterns in sites can such as the desuggest social characteristics, of centralized control, relationships to the gree of certain groups.8 and the past, segregation Such analysis has generally been applied to settlements, but it also is a useful way of looking at cemeteries. Non-mortuary Architecture: Houses and Temples This comparative analysis of spatial organization in mortuary and non-mortuary structures is implicitly based on the assumption that there was no fundamental change in the plans of and temples the Archaic houses between Period and the later Old Kingdom. This assumption does not conflict with any architectural remains so far excavated from the early period, but those remains are too few to prove or disprove it. There are, however, a number of foremost among circumstances, corroborating them the stability of these two architectural forms in later periods. In all periods for which there is evidence, the Egyptians seem to have favored the greatest possible closedness in their houses.9 Figure 2 illustrates a selection of Old and Middle house The owners of even the Kingdom plans. smallest houses were often willing to sacrifice a corner to create a small entrance vestibule that allowed them to screen their visitors. In larger 8 For the observationsof such spatial relationshipsover time in a settlement context, see Douglas W. Bailey, "The LivingHouse: SignifyingContinuity,"in: TheSocialArchaeology of Houses, 19-48.

A possible exception to this tendency is the compound of thirty, largely contiguous, room-groups at Qasr es-Saga (JoachimSliwa,"DieSiedlung des MittlernReiches bei Qasr el-Sagha,"MDAIK48 [1992], 177-91). Despite the quantities of ash, fishbones, and animal bones they contained, however,these room groups seem unlikelyto have been primarily domestic spaces. The five identical, narrow rooms opening off each courtyardresemble storerooms in their proportions (their dimensions are 2.1 x 7.9 m). These rooms were carefully fitted with doors, but there are no doorpost emplacements for the "courtyard"which was entered directly from the street, and its built-in features (benches and raised round platforms)suggest industrialactivityof some kind.

36

JARCEXXX (1993)

Fig. 2. These house plans were takenfrom thefollowing sources:Elephantine (ArchaicPeriod): MDAIK 40 (1984), 174, (left); MDAIK 43 (1987) p. 91 (right); Hierakonpolis(ArchaicPeriod): Quibell and Green,Hierakonpolis, pi 68; South Giza (FourthDynasty): Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, p. 134; Dahshur (Old Kingdom): ibid., p. 148; Khentkawestown (late Fourth Dynasty): Hassan, Giza IV, fig. 1; Kahun (Middle Kingdom): Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, p. 54 (somewhatmodifiedin accordancewith Petrie, Illahun, Kahun, and Gurob, pi 14). Orientationsdiffer and scales are approximatein some cases.

SOCIAL CHANGE

IN THE FOURTH

resulted in houses, the desire for closedness "baffle" walls at the entrance that obscured the interior and forced the visitor to walk in an S-shaped curve. The visitor was then normally led well into the house, and had to double back to reach the functional rooms, sometimes reversing direction several times to reach the most private spaces. Access to the individual rooms within houses was limited, but in some cases parallel or encircling hallways provided second entrances. The purpose of this extravagant waste of space was probably to allow different classes of people within the house (residents and visitors, or masters and servants, or men and women) to pass between the rooms without one another. Another indicaencountering tion of closedness is the frequency with which a small room adjoined the inner vestibule, from which a servant could control access to the house. 10This is especially clear in the simple palaces attached to the New Kingdomtemples of the Ramesseumand Medinet Habu (see, for example, W.J. Murnane, UnitedwithEternity (Chicago, 1980), fig. 58), where parallel hallwaysfor servantsrun behind the privatequarters,allowing servants to remove the chamber pots without disturbingthe rooms' occupants. The most extreme examples of this are the Kahunmansions,with their parallel hallways(W. M. F. Petrie, Illahun, Kahunand Gurob[London, 1891], pl. 14); but such parallelism is attested on a community-widescale as earlyas the Khentkawestown at Giza (S. Hassan,Excavations at GizaIV- 1932-1933 [Cairo, 1943], fig. 1). Such "service passages"have been similarlyanalyzed in buildings of the Roman period and the seventeenth century. See Eleanor Scott, "Romano-BritishVillas and the Social Construction of Space," The Social Archaeologyof Houses, 149-72; and Ross

Samson, "The Rise and Fall of Tower Houses in PostReformationScotland,"ibid., 197-243. 11The argumentthat these rooms represent "birthingarbors,"suggested by F. Arnold, "AStudyof EgyptianDomestic Buildings,"VA5 (1989), 81-82, is, to me, unconvincing, at least in the Old and Middle Kingdoms.A vestibule at the entrance to the house seems a strangeplace to seclude a new mother, especiallyin the Kahunmansions,where both vestibules are quite distant from the rooms Arnold identified as "women'squarters,"and one is attached to an entrance that he viewedas a privateentrancefor the stewardand male servants.One would expect buildings that contain the community's grain reservesto be guarded, and the rooms are well placed for this. It is not unlikely that even small households in such settlements of cult workershad at least one servant, and a vestibule by the door might have doubled as the servant's bedroom/livingroom, like the vestibule occupied by the bawwabin a Cairoapartmentbuilding.

DYNASTY

37

The closed pattern in large houses was already well established by the end of the Fourth Dynasty, as exemplified by the "priests' houses" along the causeway leading to the cultivation from the tomb of Queen Khentkawes.12 From the south, the houses could not be entered directly from the causeway, but only from a parallel private path accessible through doors offset from the house doors. There, a baffle wall imthe visitor, who had to mediately confronted turn left, then right, then proceed along a corridor past a small room and into an open court toward the back (north) of the house. To the south of the court was an area with a hearth and ovens, and to the southwest lay a long room that may have been the principal public room. Opening off the latter to the west were rooms probably restricted to two consecutive the family and used partly for sleeping. To the north of the public room was the largest room in the house. It was often subdivided or filled with store jars; it may have been used to store and distribute commodities as part of the occuactivity. It had a separate pant's professional entrance (taken to be the principal one by the excavator) that led past a small room to a private back street, to which access also seems to have been controlled. There is no evidence for the architecture of large houses before the late Fourth Dynasty. (The assumption of a closed plan is corroborated by the closed plans of early mortuary structures that are generally believed to duplicate palaces, but in the context of this comparative study, such arguments are potentially circular.) Small houses dating to the earlier period that have been excavated at Hierakonand Elephantine, however, show the polis same closed patterns favored in later periods; 12

Hassan, Excavations at Giza TV,fig. 1.

15W. Fairservis,K. R. Weeks,and M. Hoffman, "Preliminary report on the first two seasons at Hierakonpolis," JARCE9 (1971-72), figs. 12 and 13, show no complete houses but many small, tortuously connected rooms. The plan labeled 89 by J. E. Quibell and F. W. Green, Hierakonpolis II (London, 1902), pl. LXVIII,rooms 2-5, seems to constitute an earlyhouse. W. Kaiseret al., "Stadtund Tempel von Elephantine, 11./12. Grabungsbericht,"MDAIK40 (1984), fig. 1, 174; W. Kaiser,et al., "Stadtund Tempel von Elephantine,13./14. MDAIK43 (1987), 91, fig. 6; for an overall Grabungsbericht,"

38

JARCEXXX (1993)

Fig. 3. Templesof the earlyperiod. Theseplans are based on Kemp,Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, pp. 76 (Hierakonpolis), 78 (Abydos),68 (Medamoud), and 70 (Elephantine).

and since the elite of this period came out of the same tradition, their houses were probably as closed in plan as the large houses from the Khentkawes settlement. For purposes of this analysis, then, it will be assumed that closed plans were favored for all houses from the First Dynasty through the end of the Old Kingdom (and later), and thus that no significant change took place in patterns of domestic architecture between the Third and Fourth Dynasty. view, see W. Kaiseret al., "Stadtund Tempel von ElephanMDAIK45 (1988), 145, fig. 4. tine, 15./16. Grabungsbericht," It is not impossible that the architectureof royal palaces in the FourthDynastyreflected some of the changes in the social and religiousrole of the king that are seen in mortuary architecture. Changes in residential patterns in the capital may also have occurred, to reflect a changed relationship between the king and his subjects.Unfortunately, no royalpalacesof the Old Kingdomare knownfrom before or after the beginning of the FourthDynasty,so these propositions cannot be tested.

Temples were called the houses of the gods, but they bore little resemblance to the houses of people. Temples of the New Kingdom were generally strictly axial, and far more open in plan than houses, and there are indications that this was also true in the Old Kingdom and earlier. (See fig. 3 for some Archaic Period and Old Kingdom provincial examples.) Symmetry was important even in the most "un-Egyptian" early temples, as, for example, in the strange shrine at Medamoud. Some early temples, for example those at Abydos and Hierakonpolis, had baffle walls at the entrance to block the view of the sanctuary,but beyond that a visitor had a straight path, and was never required to double back as in contemporaryhouses. 16C. Robichon and A. Varille, "Medamoud.Fouilles du Musee du Louvre,1938,"CdE14 (1939), 82-87. 17W. M. F. Petrie, AbydosII (London, 1903), pl. 50;' and II, pl. 72. Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis

SOCIAL CHANGE IN THE FOURTH DYNASTY 18

that the O'Connor has recently suggested and Medamud at Elephantine early temples were peripheral to more important temples at those sites, and that the temples at Hierakonpolis and Abydos were Sixth Dynasty ka-chapels, again attached to more important, but undiscovered, shrines nearby. He has also noted a significant similarity between the temple enclosure of Hierakonpolis (with entrances at the east end of the north wall and the south end of the east wall and enclosing a stone-faced, off-center mound) and the royal funerary enclosures on the plain west of Abydos as he has previously20 reconstructed them. On this basis, he has suggested that such enclosures represent the standard form of early temples, and he believes that a temple of this shape is to be restored inside the town wall at Abydos as the site's principal temple. Other interpretations of this similarity are possible. East of the Horus temple enclosure is a "palace" gateway, located at the east end of a northern wall, with deposits of sand (like that in the Horus temple mound) to the south. O'Connor has identified these elements as parts of a second enclosure of the same type. Since it is unlikely that two large temple enclosures would be built so close together, and since Horus is not later paired with another deity at this site, it seems more plausible to interpret both of these Hierakonpolis enclosures as the funerary enclosures of early kings. The relative position of the two enclosures and their relationship to the Nile would not be unlike that of the Abydos enclosures. Since not all of the kings buried on the Umm el-Qab at Abydos were represented on the plain, perhaps some of them had funerary enclosures that served as their cult places at 18D. O'Connor, "The Statusof

EarlyEgyptianTemples:

an Alternate Theory," in: TheFollowersof Horus: StudiesDedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, 1944-1990, Renee Friedman

and BarbaraAdams,eds. (Oxford, 1992), 83-98. 19O'Connor's interpretationdoes not, however,explain the small shrine at the north east corner of the great court in the Djoser pyramidcomplex. It is nearly identical to the two Abydoschapels in both plan and orientation, but is unlikely to be a ka-chapel,since it is alreadylocated in a mortuarymonument. * David O'Connor, "New Funerary Enclosures (Talbezirke)of the EarlyDynasticPeriod at Abydos,"JARCE26 (1989), 51-86.

39

Hierakonpolis. Alternatively, these enclosures could have belonged to rulers centered at Hierakonpolis, as precursors, or rivals, or subordinates of the Thinite kings. The later character of the western enclosure as a cult place of Horus might derive from the assimilation of its royal owner and that god, just as the tomb of Djer was in the Eighteenth Dynasty thought to be the tomb of Osiris.2 If so, it is hardly likely to have represented the standard temple plan. Whatever the importance of the early shrine of Satet at Elephantine, it was unarguably a divine cult place of the Archaic Period, since the principal temples of later periods were built directly above it; and the Medamoud structure must also have been a temple for the same reason. These shrines resemble the small shrines of the Djoser complex in their openness. Iconographic evidence suggests that barriers at the temple entrance were largely symbolic: only a small picket gate was shown in front of archaic temples in hieroglyphic signs, presumably the same that is replicated in stone in the shrines surrounding the jubilee court in the Djoser complex. Religious rituals are notoriously conservative, and one would want far more evidence than exists to postulate a major change in them; consequently the buildings in which they were performed probably had the same access patterns in earlier periods as they did later. For example, in later periods, gods were frequently carried forth to take part in public ceremonies, and their passage through their temples was likened to the passage of the sun across the sky. If such ceremonies took place in the earlier periods, there would have been both practical and symbolic reasons for temples of the early period to have open plans.23 21 W. M. F.

Petrie, The Royal Tombsof the EarliestDynasties

II (London, 1902), p. 8. 11 C. Firth and E. J. Quibell, The StepPyramid(Cairo, 1935), pl. 62 bottom. Detailed examples of the hieroglyphic signs occur on two of the reliefs decorating the subterranean chambersin the same complex (ibid., pls. 17 and 40). Carrying-chairshrines seem to have occurred from the very earliest period. See, for example B. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 93, fig. 33. Other gods may

have traveledby sledge. Processionsof divine standardsare ubiquitous in the iconography of the late predynasticand Archaicperiods.

JARCEXXX (1993)

40

Fig. 4. Secondand ThirdDynasty tombsubstructureswith domesticfeatures: B is the burial chamber/bedroom;H is a room for use and storageof waterjars; and L representsa roomwith a latrine. Theselabels are hypotheticalin the Hetepsekhemwy substructure,based on the similarity of the shapes and configurationsof roomsto those of the private tombs, (a-c) Private tombs at Saqqara (after Quibell, Archaic Tombs, pi 30, no scale given); (d) royal substructureof Hetepsekhemwyat Saqqara (after Lauer, Pyramidea degres1, p. 5).

PrivateTombs Both before and after the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty,the best attested type of mortuary architecture is the private tomb. The large private tombs of the Second and Third Dynasties at Saqqara and elsewhere were viewed literally as houses of the dead, and their substructuressometimes contained quintessentially domestic features (see fig. 4a-c). These substructures were normally entered by a stairway from the north or east, leading to a corridor that ran south under the long axis of the overlying mastaba,periodicallyblocked by portcullis stones. The corridor usually ended in a large room, to the west of which was the burial chamber, where in some tombs a raised burial plat-

form mimicked the bed platform found in bedrooms of private houses. (The rooms with bed platformsat Kahun and the rooms assumed to be private sleeping quarters in the Khentkaweshouses were also to the west.) To the east of the end room was a more complex group of rooms, among them usually one containing a model latrine and another, north of it, containing an emplacement for water jars. This latter room often had a separate second entrance from a vestibule north of the end room, perhaps a "servicepassage,"like those seen in later private houses. These rooms probably also duplicated the living quartersof the tomb owner. Both along the axial approach to the inner suite of rooms and in the body of the overlying superstructure, these tombs contained storage

SOCIAL CHANGEIN THE FOURTH DYNASTY

41

Fig. 5. Private tomb chapels: (a) Second and Third Dynasty mastabas at Saqqara, after Quibell, Archaic Tombs, pl. 2; (b) Fourth Dynasty chapel of Nefermaat at Meydum, after Petrie, Medum, pi 7; and (c) the Fourth Dynasty chapel of

I (afterSimpson, The Mastabas of Kawab,Khafkhufu I and II,fig. 19). Khufukhaf

areas. FirstDynastytombs at Saqqaraalso stored grave goods both above and below ground, and the tradition seems to have continued into the Third Dynasty. The rectangular mastaba massif of the Saqqara superstructures also continued the older tradition. It was oriented with its long axis running north to south, and it was usually provided with a niched facade or isolated niches on its eastern face. The cult focus, either one of these 24W. B. Emery, ArchaicEgypt(Harmondsworth,1961), 158, notes that these internal features in the body of the mastaba"hadnot quite died out"in some "bigtombs of the Second Dynasty";however,a tomb of the Third Dynasty,QS 2305, contained both large storage tanks in its superstructure and sealings of Djoser. (J. E. Quibell, ArchaicTombs, 1913-1914, Excavationsat Saqqara6 [Cairo, 1923], pl. 2.) The datings of many of these tombs are based on Second Dynastyroyal names occurring in them; but many of these kings' names also occur in the substructureof the Third DynastyStep Pyramid.

niches or a recessed cruciform chapel, was cut into the body of the mastaba, and seems initially to have been open to a direct approach. In fact, however, these chapels were typically approached by extremely complex paths created by walls and rooms outside the body of the mastaba (see fig. 5a). The approach often ran along the facade and then twisted around earlier structures and the mastaba's own rooms and serdabs. The path could branch several times before reaching the cult place, so that a stranger approaching it might easily be lost. The large tombs that now lack these complex exterior approaches tend to be in areas where the secondary shafts are thickest, so it is likely 25The excavator described these chapels in general as "accessibleonly along narrow, zigzag passages"(Quibell, Archaic Tombs,p. vi).

26 See

Quibell's plan, ibid., pls. 1 and 2.

42

JARCEXXX (1993)

Fig. 6. Fourth Dynasty substructures:(a) the private shaft of Kawab at Giza (after Simpson, The Mastabas of Kawab, Khafkhufu I and W,fig. 7; (b) the substructureof the pyramid of Khafre at Giza (after Edwards, Pyramids

of Egypt,p. 132).

that such complex approaches were more common than their survivalindicates. The decoration of the chapels of Third Dynasty tombs was normally limited to the stela with the table scene and other representations of the deceased. Women and men apparently had their own cult places. If the tomb of HesyRe was typical, chapels that were more extensively decorated added representations of food and equipment, doubtless very like the supplies that filled the numerous storerooms, and geometrical motifs on the niched facade. Servants and scenes of daily life were represented only in the outer rooms. Already in the late Third Dynasty, several changes began to take place in privatetombs. In the substructure,the storerooms and portcullis stones disappeared, and the suite of rooms at the end of the corridor was replaced by a single room with no domestic features (see fig. 6a). By the Fourth Dynasty,the superstructuresof private tombs had also become considerably simpler. Although they retained the rectangular shape, north-south orientation, and often the cruciform chapel, niched facades became ex27 E. J. Quibell, TheTombofHesy,1911-1912, Excavations at Saqqara5, (Cairo, 1913). 2 Hesy-Re,for example, had scenes in his outer corridor of men leading cattle, and a crocodile in a pool. (Ibid., 10.)

tremely rare and the approach to the cult place was either direct or through a simple exterior building. The plans were uniformly more open than those in the larger Third Dynastytombs29 (see fig. 5b-c). The Fourth Dynasty private tombs at Meydum show a marked increase in decoration, often carved on a limestone facing that lined the cruciform chapels. Here, the commodities and equipment recorded in such loving detail by Hesy-Re'sartistswere reduced to compartmental lists. Most notable, however, was the inclusion of family members in tomb decoration. Couples often shared tombs, and sometimes appeared together in the table scene of the false doors, while their children were shown flanking the central niche. Husbands and wives of the period could also be represented together in statuary on the same scale. The quantity of wall decoration was sharply (and temporarily) curtailed in the reign of Khufu. where it was replaced by finely painted slab stelas and mastabas built entirely of stone, but the occasional occurrence of family members along with the male tomb owner continued, especially as the decoration began to increase in quantityagain. There is very little evidence of burial equipment from either the Fourth Dynasty or the period preceding, but it is very likely that burials during the Fourth Dynastywere considerably poorer than they had been previously. The substructureswithout storerooms provided space for only a limited amount of grave goods, and the disappearance of portcullis stones suggests that there was little to steal. Support for 29At Meydum, the original cruciform chapels seem to have been replaced by an even simplerform, a simple offering court with a single central niche. (Petrie, Medum[London, 1892], pl. 7). Petrie, Medum,pls. 9ff. Interestingly,the women, who are shown in positions where both wives and mothers frequently appear later, are not specificallycalled hmt.f,"his wife."However,it is most likely that they were wives, since none have queenly titles and the men are all king's sons. MohamedSaleh and Hourig Sourouzian,OfficialCatalogue of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo (Mainz, 1987), entry 27

and bibliographytherein.

W. S. Smith, The Art and Architectureof Ancient Egypt,

2nd ed., revisedby W. K. Simpson (Harmondsworth,1981), 104.

SOCIAL CHANGEIN THE FOURTH DYNASTY this suggestion can be found in the burial of Hetepheres I. Although she was probably the most important person in the country after her son Khufu himself, her tomb contained only a bed and its canopy, its curtains in an inlaid box, two chairs, a carrying chair, ceramic vessels, and several boxes holding a collection of jewelry and other equipment.33 Aside from her body, it is unlikely that this burial chamber, now thought to have been her original place of interment, could have held much more. Such equipment is meager indeed, compared with the food, clothing, furniture, and other supplies that must have filled the extensive storerooms of far less important people during the first three dynasties. In general, then, although the privatetomb of the Fourth Dynasty continued the traditional external shape and orientation of the preceding period, it can be said to have been poorer in contents, though richer in its building materials and its decoration. Familymembers began to be shown in decoration, the wife depicted on the same scale as her husband; and the depictions of domestic furniture were greatly reduced in importance. Both the mastaba superstructure and its cult place became simpler in plan and more directlyapproached, and the burial chamber no longer replicated the tomb owner's house on earth. RoyalMortuaryComplexes Unlike the royal tombs of the First Dynastyat Abydos,35the royal mortuarycomplexes of the 33 Ibid., 87-95.

34 Mark

Lehner, The pyramid tomb of Queen Hetep-heresI and the satellitepyramid of Khufu (Mainz, 1985), 35-44.

6bThe older view that the tombs at the Umm el-Qab were cenotaphs and that the larger First Dynastytombs at Saqqarawere the kings' actual burial places is unlikely.The only real argument for identifying the tombs at Saqqaraas royalwas that they were larger than the burialsat the Umm el-Qab. This argumentignores the value of location:a small tomb on sacredground can be more desirablethan a larger tomb elsewhere. (A possible example of this phenomenon from a later period is the comparativesizes of the tombs of the Votaresses of Amon in the Medinet Habu enclosure, and the tombs of their stewardsin the Asasif.) Moreover, according to B. Kemp's convincing analysis of the enclosures on the plain at Abydos (B. Kemp, "Abydosand the

43

Second and Third Dynastiesare not verywell attested. Of Second Dynastyroyal tombs, we have only the Upper Egyptian "forts" at Hierakonpolis and Abydos, the tombs of Peribsen and Khasekhemwyat the Umm el-Qab at the latter site, and two impressive underground substructuresat Saqqara, the superstructures of which have been lost. From the Third Dynasty,we have the complexes of Djoser and Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty,"JEA52 [1966], 13-22; and idem, "TheEgyptian1st Dynastyroyalcemetery,"Antiquity 41 [1967], 22-32), the Abydos complexes may have been far larger and more elaborate than their Saqqara counterparts.The tombs at Saqqarathus probablybelonged to the officials whose sealings and stelas were found in them. The private nature of the Saqqaratombs is further confirmedin the analysisof cemeteryorganizationbelow. W. Kaiser, "Einige Bemerkungen zur agyptischen FriihzeitIII:Die Reichseinigung,"ZAS91 (1964), 104 n. 4. W. M. F. Petrie, The Tombsof the Courtiersand Oxyrhyn-

chus(London, 1925), and, most recently, O'Connor,JARCE 26(1989), 51-86. 38 Petrie, RoyalTombsII, 11-14, pls. 61 and 63. The westernmostsubstructureis generally attributed to Hetepsekemwy,although it also contained sealingsof his a degres successorRa-neb.A plan is given in Lauer,Pyramide I, 4, although this plan differs somewhatfrom the detailed verbal account given by the excavator,A. Barsanti,in "Rapports sur les deblaiements operes autour de la pyramide d'Ounas,"ASAE2 (1901), 250-53, and in "Fouillesautour de la pyramided'Ounas 1901-2," ASAE3 (1902), 182-84. The second substructureopens just south of the southwest corner of the mastabaof Nebkauhorand contained Archaic Period vessels and sealings of Ninetjer in addition to many late period burials. It was mentioned briefly in S. Hassan, "Excavationsat Saqqara,1937-1938," ASAE38 (1938), 521 and H. Chevrier, "Les Fouilles," CdE13 (1938), 283 (iv). Though it is frequently described as similar to Hetepsekhemwy's,the plan of the northern part of this substructure that has been published (P. Munro, "Der UnasFriedhof Nord-West 4./5. Vorbericht iiber die Arbeiten Hannover/Berlinin Saqqara,"GM 63 [1983], 109) differs substantially. R. Stadelmann, "Die Oberbauten der Konigsgraber der 2. Dynastie in Sakkara," Melanges Gamal eddin Mokhtar,

BdE 97/2 (Cairo, 1985), 295-307, has suggested that the long storeroom structures along the western edge of the Djoser complex represent a third Second Dynasty tomb, and restores the other superstructuresaccordingly. However, the rooms at the southern end do not resemble the "bedroom-lavatory-bathroom" complex at the southern end of Hetepsekhemwy'ssubstructure. W. B. Emery, Archaic Egypt,144-45, suggested that the internal stepped structure found in a Saqqaramastabafrom the reign of Anedjibmimicked contemporaryroyal superstructuresat Abydos,which ultimately were the source of the Step Pyramid. Iconographic and textual evidence from Abydosseem to support

44

JARCE XXX (1993)

Sekhemkhet at Saqqara, as well as several unexcavated complexes usually believed to date to The unfinished "Layer Pyratheir successors. mid" at Zawiyet al-Aryan probably also dates to the end of this dynasty, as does, perhaps, the the pyramid of stepped pyramid underlying Meydum. The earliest of these structures is remarkably similar in spatial organization, though not in of the two tombs. The western to size, private is which generally attribSaqqara substructures, uted to king Hetepsekhemwy (fig. 4d), was enfrom the north tered through a long corridor flanked on either side by groups of cathat was The rooms at storerooms. pacious comb-like of the corridor were complex the south end in innermost rooms and irregular plan. These on the like the included a large room west, in tombs. East of the burial chambers private of main axis was a more complex group rooms, similar to those in private tombs that contain a latrine and areas for water storage. No bed platform or latrine slab appears in the published plan of the tomb; however, the plan may have been made without completely clearing the floor. Whether or not these features were included, the layout of the innermost chambers this hypothesis (see Ann Macy Roth, Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom: the Evolution of a Systemof Social Organization,

SAOC 48 [Chicago, 1991], 167-68), in which case the superstructuresof these Second Dynastytombs, and all royal superstructuresuntil that of Snefru, can reasonablybe assumed to have been stepped. See, for example, the photographsin GeoffreyT. Martin, The Hidden Tombsof Memphis:New Discoveries from the Timeof Tutankhamun and RamessestheGreat(London, 1991), despyra22 (fig. 6), and in Jean Capart,Memphis,a Vombre mides(Bruxelles, 1930), p. iv. These structuresare assumed to be of Third Dynastydate, but since we know nothing about the Second Dynastysuperstructuresat Saqqara,some may date to that period, as Stadelmannhas suggested ("Die Oberbauten der Konigsgraber,"304-7). The anonymous enclosures west of Djoser's, however, are probably later. Compare, for example the tombs on the Umm el-Qab at Abydos, and the funeraryenclosures on the plain north of the same city, as well as the tombs of the firstthree dynasties in the northern part of the Saqqaracemetery. The Third Dynastysites are well covered in a number of general books: Edwards, The Pyramidsof Egypt,34-69; R. Stadelmann,Die dgyptischen 31-79; idem, Die Pyramiden, GrossenPyramidenvon Giza (Graz, Austria, 1991), 54-71. (Stadelmann attributes the unexcavated complexes to the Second Dynasty,however.)

clearly suggests that they, like the private tombs of the same dynasty, represented in microcosm the private apartments of the tomb's owner. The substructures of the late Second Dynasty tombs at Abydos attributed to Peribsen and of Khasekhemwy also consisted predominantly storerooms. Here, however, the burial chamber was at the (with no domestic characteristics) surrounded center, by storerooms, presumably following the pattern of the nearby First Dynasty tombs. This pattern of surrounding storerooms continued in the substructures of the Third four had groups of Dynasty. Djoser's pyramid each out from one side storerooms, radiating of his central burial chamber, while the pyramid of Sekhemkhet and the Layer Pyramid at Zawiyet al-Aryan both had corridors of storerooms that branched off the main axis before the burial chamber and encircled the burial chamber on three sides. the Like the Second Dynasty substructures, of the was superstructure Djoser complex probably reminiscent of the palace complex in which the king lived during his life on earth. The enclosure, like most other early tombs, was oriented with its long axis running north-south. The complex was extremely difficult to enter. There was no valley structure or causeway, so a visitor must have found his own way to the enclosure from the edge of the cultivation. Only one of the many model doorways in the niched enclosure wall actually gave access to the interior, and although the entrance colonnade led into the large courtyard south of the pyramid, only someone familiar with the plan would have known how to reach the structure on the north side of the pyramid that is generally believed to be Djoser's mortuary temple. This difficulty of access to the complex itself was also the result of a long tradition. The First and Second Dynasty monuments at Abydos, both the tombs on the Umm el-Qab and the enclosures nearer the city (see fig. 7a), were often 4t Corridors that branch and surround the innermost group of rooms maybe attested as earlyas the Saqqarasubstructureof Ninetjer. Chevrier'saccount of its discoveryin CdE13 (1938), 283, describesit as extending east, west, and south of its entrance; and the partial plan published by Munro, GM63 (1983), 109, also suggests that the corridor branched to the east and westjust south of the entrance.

SOCIAL CHANGE

IN THE FOURTH

sited directly behind one another, making the less visible and less invitwestern monuments is also true of the Second and Third This ing. and enclosures at Saqqara Dynasty complexes none of these complexes (see fig. 7b). Clearly were meant to attract casual tourists, and access was probably restricted to people who knew the layout well. This pattern of indirect access was even more noticeable in the plans of individual buildings in the Djoser complex (fig. 8a-c). The mortuary temple had long hallways that circled the building and doubled back on themselves before leading to the principal rooms; and, on the west, it had service passages located to bypass the two butchering areas. Its complexity and tortuous pathways equal those of the Kahun mansions. Also similar to domestic plans in closedness were Temple T and the peculiar of twisting passages southeast of the complex court. (The shrines in the jubilee court, jubilee on traditional shrines, demodeled probably from these part patterns, as does the triple shrine that may imitate the shape of the early temple at Abydos.) Interestingly, even when the plans of their rooms were extremely closed, the stone doors of these buildings were all rendered eternally open, perhaps reflecting a tension between the closed plan of the palace that served as a model for the complex, and a relithat the mortuary monugious requirement ment be accessible to the king's spirit. That the closedness of the Djoser complex was not an isolated example is clear from the "token palaces" in the southeast corners of the Peribsen and Khasekhemwy enclosures at Abydos (see fig. 8d-e). Although the Khasekhemwy building was considerably more complex than Peribsen's, both led the visitor from the south to the north end of the building and then to the south again, a typical domestic arrangement. A tradition of royal mortuary buildings with domestic characteristics thus lay behind the Djoser complex. The change in the royal mortuary complex at of the Fourth Dynasty was far the beginning more radical than the change in private tombs. The element that changed the least was the 44 E. R. Ayrton, C. T. Currelly, and A. E. P. Weigall, AbydosIII (London, 1904), pl. 6 and 7.

DYNASTY

45

substructure, which remained similar to those of the Third Dynasty, except that, beginning with the Meydum pyramid, the corridors of storerooms vanished (see fig. 6b). Usually, a single passage descended from the north face to the of the pyramid, and then ascended burial chamber. The burial chambers of the pyramid at Meydum and the Bent Pyramid at Dahshur were oriented with their long axis north-south, but beginning with the Northern Pyramid at Dahshur, the burial chamber was usually oriented with its long axis east to west. By the reign of Khufu, the position of the coffin had been established at the west end of the chamber, just as it had been in the "bed chambers" of the Second Dynasty tombs. This might between the tradihave been a compromise tional north-south axis of the substructure (and of all earlier superstructures) and the new eastwest axis of the Fourth Dynasty superstructure. The second entrance to the Bent Pyramid of Dahshur from the west may have been an earlier attempt to solve this problem. of As in private tombs, the disappearance storerooms must necessarily have meant a decrease in the quantity of goods buried with the king. The earlier storerooms were clearly not empty, and their contents would not have fit into the small chambers provided for the later, much larger, monuments. Interestingly, internal storerooms began to appear again just as the pyramids began to decrease in size. Menkaure's pyramid had a side chamber giving access to six storerooms, Shepseskaf 's tomb had a corridor with five storerooms, and the Fifth Dynasty pyramids routinely had three. of the Fourth Dynasty The superstructure more radically than its tomb far changed royal was The rectangular enclosure substructure. abandoned in favor of a linear series of diverse structures (valley temple, causeway, mortuary temple, pyramid) that ran from east to west, beginning at the edge of the cultivation. The diffithe Djoser culty of access that characterized 45 Both of the Dahshur pyramidsand that of Khufuhave secondaryroomswhere gravegoods might havebeen stored, but all of these are on the main axis, and do not seem to fit the Egyptianconception of "magazines."Khafre'spyramid has a large room at the end of a passageat right angles to the principalpassage,but no storeroomsopen off of it.

46

JARCEXXX (1993)

Fig. 7. Layouts of royal enclosuresat (a) Abydos(after Kemp,JEA 52 (1966), p. 14) and (b) royal enclosuresand private tombs (black) at Saqqara. (AfterB. G. Triggerin: Triggeret al, Ancient Egypt: A Social History (Cambridge,1983), p. 14. Additional royal enclosureshave been added, based on Stadelmann, Die agyptischen Pyramiden, p. 30; and the placement of individual tombsin the subsidiary cemeteriesto the west are based on Kaiser, MDAIK 41 [1985], p. 49.)

SOCIAL CHANGEIN THE FOURTH DYNASTY

47

Fig. 8. Threebuildings in theDjoser complex:(a) TempleT, (b) a building at the southeast cornerof thejubilee court, and (c) the mortuarytemple(afterFirth and Quibell, The Step Pyramid, pls. 67, 59 and 27, respectively.Earlier buildings from the Abydosenclosuresof (d) Peribsenand (e) Khasekhemwy(afterKaiser, MDAIK 25 (1969), p. 9). (Not drawn to the same scale.)

complex was entirely eliminated, both in the complex as a whole and its individual elements. The new complexes were exceedingly axial and symmetrical in plan (see fig. 9). An S-twist or baffle wall sometimes obscured access to the sanctuary itself, but the approach was far simpler, and without confusing side passages or reversalsin direction. In their degree of openness, the royal mortuary temples resembled closely the temples of the gods. Even the size of the Fourth Dynastypyramids enhanced their accessibility.The earliest royal monuments on the Umm el-Qab were probably topped with low (2.5 m maximum) mounds that would have been almost completely invisible from a distance. There wasa steadygrowthin visibility from that time through the reign of Djoser, when the burial mound-Step Pyramid extended above the high enclosure wall. By any measure, the early Fourth Dynasty pyramids were larger; towering above lower enclosure walls, they could be seen and understood by all levels of Egyptiansociety. The isolation and plan of the entire Fourth Dynasty royal complex made its spatial organization obvious from the valley, and in theory, strangerscould easily have 46 G.

Dreyer, "ZurRekonstruktionder Oberbauten der Konigsgraberder 1. Dynastiein Abydos,"MDAIK47 (1991), 102.

found their way to the sanctuary. In practice, however, their way might have been blocked, since the Fourth Dynastycomplexes apparently had working doors, unlike the perpetuallyopen stone doors at the Djoser complex. The increased accessibility was thus probably more ideological and symbolic than practical. Another clear change in royalsuperstructures was the increase in their decoration. Where decoration in the Step Pyramid Complex had been limited to the reproduction of plant motifs and six panels depicting the king placed in the inaccessible substructure, extensive figurative relief decoration began to appear on the walls of the superstructure associated with the Bent Pyramid, and there are indications that structures of Khufu and Khafre also bore wall decoration.4 While such decoration did not itself increase the complex's accessibility,it demonstrates again the shifting of focus from the substructureto the superstructureof the tomb. However different in effect, the changes that occurred in royal tombs in the early Fourth Dynasty move in the same general direction as the changes that took place in contemporary private tombs. Both private and royal tombs lost their storerooms, their closedness, and their H. Goedicke, Re-UsedBlocksfrom the PyramidofAmenem-

hetlatLisht (New York,1971), nos. 1-7.

48

JARCEXXX (1993)

Fig. 9. Royal mortuarytemplesof the Fourth Dynasty: (a) at the Meydumpyramid and (b) at the pyramid of Khufu (after Edwards, Pyramids of Egypt, pp. 75 and 112 respectively).(Not drawn to the same scale.)

domestic features, and their cult places began to resemble the more open plans of temples and receive decoration. But while earlier royal tombs were simply elaborate versions of their private counterparts, the tombs of Fourth Dynasty kings changed in waysthat sharplydistinguished them from those of their subjects. The pyramids made powerful symbolic statements, as did the valley temples and causewaysthat put these monuments in active and direct contact with the populations of the living. In this period there is no doubt which tombs belong to kings and which to commoners. Cemetery Organization In addition to changes in the size, shape, contents, and orientation of royal tombs, the latter part of the Third Dynastyalso marked a change in their location. The Umm el-Qab, in the desert west of Abydos, was a traditional royal cemetery even before the First Dynasty kings were buried there. Except for the surrounding subsidiaryburials, it was exclusively royal; and whether or not these subsidiary burials were sacrificial, the people buried in them seem to have been relegated to the status of burial equipment, providing labor and companionship for the king just as servant models did in later periods. The last few kings of the Second Dynasty also built tombs at the Umm el-Qab,

and possibly at the even older site of Hierakonpolis. Earlier Second Dynasty kings, however, were apparentlyburied at Saqqara,perhaps because of the presence of some favored deity or an illustrious ancestor in the non-royal cemetery there. It was to this newer royal cemetery that the Third Dynastykings returned. During most of this period, then, the kings built tombs awayfrom their subjects, in special cemeteries where their ancestors had been buried. Even at Saqqara,which had originally been a privatecemetery, a sharp dividing line marked by natural barrierswas maintained between the royal sector to the south and the private sector to the north (see fig. 7b). Despite the lack of space caused by the giant enclosures, later kings preferred to build in less desirable western areas, or to raze the superstructures of their predecessors, rather than build in the nonroyal cemetery to the north. Privateindividuals were equally restricted in siting their tombs. Increasingly, they expanded towardsthe west and towardsAbu Sir to the north, but no tombs were built in the southern, exclusively royal, sector until the Fifth Dynasty. (A similar avoidance 48W. Kaiser has suggested that the concentrations of lines of subsidiarygravesnorth of the later entrance to the Serapeum are connected with some sort of First Dynasty royalcult there ("EinKultbezirkdes KonigsDen in Sakkara, MDA1K41[1985], 47-60). This is possible, or the subsidiary graves might be related to early burials of the Apis bulls, who were buried in this area in later periods. 49Whatever their form, the superstructuresof Hetepsekhemwyand Ninetjer seem likely to have been casualties of Djoser's construction work to the north, since any but the most minimal superstructurecovering these substructures would have interfered with the construction of his massiveenclosure wall. Djoserapparentlyhad special access to the possessions of these earlier kings, since seventeen vessels found in his storerooms bear the name of Hetepsekhemwyand thirteen that of Ninetjer (P. Lacauand J.-P. Lauer, La Pyramide a degresTV:Inscriptionsgraveessur les vases

[Cairo, 1959-1961], 29-38). This would be explained by the assumption that Djoser leveled their tomb superstructures and appropriatedthe contents. The name of Djer also occurs on thirteen vessels, usuallyassociatedwith the instiwhich perhaps also fell victim to Djoser's tution Smr-ntrw, workmen.No other king is mentioned on more than eight vessels,and Djoserhimself is mentioned on only one. 50 This division of the Saqqaranecropolis would hardly have been so strictly maintained had the First Dynasty tombs in the northern sector been the burial places of the FirstDynastykings.

SOCIAL CHANGEIN THE FOURTH DYNASTY

49

Fig. 10. The royalpyramid cemeteriesof Dahshur (after Stadelmann, Die agyptischen Pyramiden, p. 88; no scale given) and Giza (after O'Connor,World Archaeology 6 (1974), p. 21. (Not drawn to the same scale.)

of the area of the royal enclosures at Abydos seems to have lasted until the FirstIntermediate Period.)51 The end of the Third Dynasty, however, brought a new pattern. In the latter part of this and most of the following dynasty, each new king built his tomb at a new site, often at a great distance from the tomb of his predecessor. (The many small step pyramidsfound throughout Egypt, dating technologically to the late Third Dynastyor Snefru's reign, may be related to this policy.) This pattern was broken in only a few reigns, and it was continued intermittently into the Fifth Dynastyby the kings who initiated new cemeteries at South Saqqaraand Abu Sir. These repeated breaks with ancestral tradition can also be seen in the private cemeteries of the Fourth Dynasty. The high officials and royal family members at Memphis had been, if anything, more conservative than their royal overlords in locating their tombs. First Dynasty officials built their tombs in irregular rows along the escarpment at Saqqara north of the central wadi. Their successors of the Second and Third Dynasties built tombs be51 Richards, J. "Understandingthe MortuaryRemainsat Abydos,"NARCE142 (1988), 7-8.

hind them to the west, moving ever westward as the prime areas on the escarpment itself became crowded. There was also an apparent tendency to move northward, away from the royal tombs that had begun to be built to the south, but this may be the result of uneven preservationand excavation. In the Fourth Dynasty, high officials and members of the royal family seem to have abandoned this traditional cemetery to build their tombs in cemeteries near the royal tomb. At Meydum and Dahshur, these private "pyramid cemeteries" were located some distance from the royal tomb, at least as far as the distance between the royal and non-royal sectors at Saqqara (see fig. 10a). The distance between the royal and private tombs decreased markedly at Giza (compare fig. 10b); but the novelty lay not in the proximity to the royal tomb, but in the dependence upon it. When royal tombs 52 This movement may have begun simultaneouslywith the moving of royal tombs awayfrom Saqqara,since there were brick mastabasexcavated north of the LayerPyramid of Zawieyetel-Aryan.(Dows Dunham, Zawiyetel-Aryan:The Cemeteriesadjacent to the LayerPyramid [Boston, 1978] , 34.) At

Meydumand the Bent Pyramid,subsidiarycemeteries also were laid out to the north, perhaps mimicking the geography of Saqqara.

50

JARCE XXX (1993)

moved from Abydos to Saqqara and back again in the first two dynasties, the tombs of officials had remained at Saqqara without reference to the site of the royal tomb. (That both private and royal tombs at Saqqara tended to move westward was due to similar spatial constraints rather than any relationship.) Under the new system, tomb builders were granted planned spaces in the new royal cemeteries surrounding the pyramid by the central authority, probably in proportion to some measure of their social rank and political importance. At Saqqara the private cemetery had been mix of tombs of officials, varying a homogeneous in size and jostling against one another in an effort to claim the most advantageous position. Now the private tombs were laid out in even rows, and fell into a uniform range of sizes. These tombs were not only associated with the royal tomb, but were to some extent dependent upon it, since the cemetery was clearly part of a large, planned mortuary landscape centered the upon pyramid. With their new privileged to the royal tomb, paradoxically, the proximity officials' tombs resembled nothing so much as the subsidiary graves around the First Dynasty royal tombs, tombs that had belonged to a far lower stratum of society. Unlike these earlier tombs, however, they occurred in clusters rather than rows.53 The location of royal and private tombs and the relationship between them clearly reflected a major social change towards the end of the Third Dynasty. The authority of ancestors, of historical family ties, and perhaps of tribal loyalties was weakened in both the royal and private spheres, and in the private sphere it seems to have been replaced by a greater dependence upon the power of the king. The new, independent position of royal tombs suggests that these kings no longer derived their power from their relationship to earlier kings; this source of authority may have been replaced by the new relationship of the individual kings to the sun god that has been postulated on the basis of the 53 The contrast between the pattern in linear cemeteries of private tombs and the clusters of royal monuments has alreadybeen noted by O'Connor,JARCE26 (1989), 59 and n. 23.

shape of their pyramids, and is made explicit in texts of the early Fourth Dynasty. Conclusions The changes described above, all of which occurred around the time of the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty, are summarized in Table 1. This collection of contrasts suggests strongly that the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty coincided with two fundamental one changes, afterlife and the the of the affecting conception other affecting the relationship between the king and his subordinates. The new and striking contrast in the architectural form of the tombs of kings and commoners alike suggests a change in beliefs about the nature of the afterlife and the needs of the dead. Fourth Dynasty Egyptians no longer viewed the afterlife as identical to life on earth, and hence they no longer required earthly goods to take part in it. The house plans of commoners ceased to affect the plan of their tomb chambers, and the buildings necessary for the king's earthly activities were not duplicated in his mortuary complex. At the same time, the amount of grave goods buried with the deceased, which had been increasing in quantity and variety since the beginning of the predynastic period, was suddenly drastically reduced, as indicated by the reduced storage space available for such goods in both royal and private tombs. For the earthly food, furnishings, and domestic spaces that were supplied in older tombs, Fourth Dynasty officials seem to have substituted two new requirements, the perpetual cult ceremonies performed by the living and the blessings of the king. Cult service of some kind probably existed in earlier periods, at least for but it may have been very different from kings, what it was later. The architecture of both royal 54 Stone bowls inscribed with the name of the Zi-ho-nb/ Hr/jjtj,presumablyroyal tombs, and phyles of some type of cult functionariesare known from the end of the first dynasty (Roth, EgyptianPhyles in the Old Kingdom,154-69); and

an early table of distributionwas found at the Djoser complex that is similarto those found at the Fifth Dynastycomplex of Neferefre (ibid., 181-88).

SOCIALCHANGEIN THE FOURTH DYNASTY

51

Table 1: MortuaryCustoms in the Third and Fourth Dynasty Third Dynasty

Fourth Dynasty

PrivateTombs Complex "domestic"substructures Substructureentered by stairway Manystorerooms, portcullis Plentiful grave goods Chapel has closed plan Mudbrickconstruction Man and wife have separate chapels Wall decoration rare

Single chamber Most often shaft from top No storerooms, no portcullis Few grave goods Open access to chapel Largelyor entirely stone Man and wife represented together Increasingwall decoration

RoyalTombs Stepped pyramid Not prominent or accessible Axis of enclosure north-south Elaborationof private plan Asymmetrical"domestic"plans House-like substructure Many,many storerooms Permanentlyopen doors (Djoser) Decoration underground (Djoser)

True pyramid Prominent, accessible appearance Axis of complex east-west Exclusivelyroyal form Symmetrical"temple"plans Single burial chamber, antechambers Few, if any, storerooms Real doors, could close Decorated cult places

Cemetery Organization Ancestral cemeteries of officials Kingsburied together Privatetombs independent of royal Siting of tombs uncontrolled

Privatecemeteries centered on pyramid New site for almost every reign Privatetombs move with king's Privatetombs laid out on grid

and private tombs makes it unlikely that their builders wanted to encourage casualvisits to the tomb, such as those requested by the later "calls upon the living," and it is possible that private tombs were essentially abandoned after the funeral. The absence of family members of the tomb owner from tomb decoration in the early period, and their ubiquity afterwards, is also suggestive. The tomb owner's descendants were largely responsible for the carrying out of the cult, and their representation and hence immortalizationin tombs may have been an incentive for more faithful service. The transfer of resources from the cutting and equipping of numerous underground storerooms (an expensive but invisible investment) to stone-built superstructures with stone-carved decoration, which ostentatiouslydisplayed the wealth and status of

the tomb owner, was also a change in the direction of ensuring the service of the cult. It shows a desire to attract casual visitors who might be inspired to make an offering by the implied power of the tomb owner in the spirit realm. Another factor in Fourth Dynasty private cults was the increased importance of the king. The need for his "blessings"is suggested by the inauguration of pyramid cemeteries. This was in part a practical dependence. A tomb site near the royal pyramidoffered the possibilityof access to the more expensive materials and royal crafts specialists of the pyramidproject, as well as the status boost of proximity to such an important monument. But the dependence suggested by the metaphor of cemetery organization was not entirely economically based. The introduction of the htp-dj-nswt formula dates to

52

JARCE XXX (1993)

complexes, as has been noted above, has many elements in common with temples of divinities, perhaps because both were designed to ease of large quantities of food the transportation The offerings. impressive size of this architecture also inspired the fear and loyalty that helped ensure continual service. In this need for cult service, the king, like his subjects, depended upon the kindness of posterity. The king's dependence upon the elite did not begin with his death. The task of building the immense pyramid that was a necessary part of the new system undoubtedly required far more resources than the earlier type of royal tomb. Although the magnitude of the pyramid itself would have increased the total sum of resources available to him by increasing royal power, these gains would hardly have been sufficient alone to pay the costs of the project. available The quantity of surplus production for use in mortuary architecture (and other immediate subordinates the spheres) by king's must have been severely curtailed, and considerable political skills would have been required to convince the elite that resources from their savings in grave goods should be invested in the pyramid project. Their support was arprobably obtained by a tacit quid-pro-quo received Tomb builders apparently rangement. materials from the higher quality building Labor for stone supplied for the royal project. construction and access to royal crafts specialthe tombs may also have ists for decorating the been centrally Furthermore, supplied. conto the royal pyramid presumably proximity ferred status, both during the lifetime of the officials and afterwards, enhancing their prosfor these pects of eternal life. In exchange benefits, the officials must have provided laborers, food, and other resources necessary to supproject. In this sense port the pyramid-building of the new pyramid the spatial organization not the dependence cemeteries demonstrates 55WinfriedBarta, Aufbauund Bedeutungderaltdgyptischen (Gluckstadt,1968), 3. Opferformel One novel feature of Fourth Dynasty pyramid subN. Cherpion, Mastabas et Hypogees d'ancien empire:Le structuresbetween Snefru and Khafre that has not to my de la datation,Connaissancede l'Egypte Ancienne probleme knowledge been noted previouslyis that a pyramid'sentrance corridorsfirst descend, then rise to reach the burial (Bruxelles, 1989), 79, has argued that no Tura limestone was used in privatetombs at Giza after the Fourth Dynasty, chamber. This pattern might be related to the setting and in other words, after the completion of the royal pyramids rising of the sun, although the axis is north-south rather for which Tura limestone wasbrought. than west-east.

the early Fourth Dynasty,55 and, however it is to be interpreted, it explicitly states the theoretiof officials on the king's bounty cal dependence for the necessities of the afterlife. The use of the generic nsiutin the formula, rather than the name of a specific royal benefactor, suggests that the formula called for support from future, living kings, not just the tomb owner's contemporaries, just as the cult required a perpetual service of mortuary priests. Until the end of the Third Dynasty, then, the elite depended upon the past to ensure a continued life after death, a dependence suggested of their architecturally by the duplication burial of the goods acquired earthly houses, by during life, and by the location of their tombs in ancestral cemeteries. Beginning in the Fourth looked to the living and tomb owners Dynasty, to posterity for their security, depending on the continued favor of kings and the loyalty of their The tombs' surviving family and dependents. from increased accessibility and independence older cemeteries indicates visibly a shifting of focus from ancestors to future generations. If the king's authority ensured the afterlife of his loyal subjects, who ensured the afterlife of the king? The east-west axis of the new mortuary complex, the pyramidal shape of the burial mound, and the importance of the sun god Re in royal names and titles later in the dynasty are evidence for an increased connection with the of the dead king solar cult. The identification with Re, who was reborn daily at sunrise, was a powerful metaphorical insurance of the survival of his soul.56 An afterlife lived with Re in his solar bark differed markedly, however, from the repetition of earthly glories that Djoser anticipated. Supplies for an earthly existence were unnecessary; instead, perpetual offerings and cultic service like those received by gods were required. The architecture of the new mortuary

SOCIAL CHANGE IN THE FOURTH of the officials on the king, but the dependence of the king on his officials. Still other concessions to these essential supporters can be seen in textual sources. It is at this period that the king's personal name began to be used extensively on monuments, sug~ gesting a greater degree of access to him as an individual. This name also began to be incorporated in the names of his officials and cult a concession probably intended to personnel, a closer forge relationship with the king and make sacrifices on his behalf more acceptable. Also built on the name of the king were the names of royal mortuary estates, lands set aside to supby the king as perpetual endowments his cult. Here the use of the port again, powerful royal name may have helped ensure the loyalty of agricultural workers. Some revenues from these funerary endowments were clearly diverted to supply the cults of loyal supporters, who took the opportunity to depict this prestigious source of supply on their chapel walls.59 (The king thus essentially garnished future agricultural production to pay for his pyramid, an early example of deficit spending.) Such concessions suggest that Snefru's reign marked a departure from the conception of in which derived kingship royal power solely from fear of the king. The high walls of the early the deroyal tombs represent metaphorically fensive nature of power that rested on the ability to extract resources forcibly and punish opponents. The amount of control that can be exercised with this type of power is limited. The (visually) more accessible monuments of Snefru and his successors suggest that their power rested on a more political base, appealing to the approval of at least the elite members of the population, who willingly supported the king's 58 H.

Ranke, Die dgyptischenPersonennamen2 (Gliickstadt,

1952), 229-32. Although Rankenotes the absence of several divine names from the Archaicperiod corpus, basilophoric names are simplyabsent from his summaryof name typesof the first three dynasties, and present in his Old Kingdom survey. The first attested estates occur in the reign of Snefru. Helen Jacquet-Gordon,Les nomsde domainesfunerairessous Vancienempireegyptien, BdE 34 (Cairo, 1962), 8. Some estates of earlier kings may occur, but they are of later date, and may have been organized posthumously.

DYNASTY

53

authority in exchange for good government. Such a transition is supported textually by Snefru's adoption of the title ntr nfr, "the good god," and, even more significantly, the Horus name Nb-Mjct, "possessor of Maat," referring to his ability to maintain an ideal world order based on justice, truth, and traditionally prescribed behavior. That the transition was at least partly conscious, and that it entailed some hyperbolic propaganda stressing the king's goodnatured humanity, can be surmised from the benign, almost buffoonish role Snefru plays in lecherouslater literature: his simple-minded ness in the papyrus Westcar story and his hearty good fellowship and willingness to act as a humble scribe in the "Prophecies of Neferti."60 The pyramids were thus built at the expense of the king's god-like distance from his subjects. At the same time, other strategies were adopted to reinforce his divinity. The new use of the king's personal name in the personal names of his subjects gave them a special connection with him, but also gave him the same role as gods, who were traditionally mentioned in theophoric names. The htp-dj-nswt formula, in which the king was normally paired with Anubis in granting boons in the afterlife, again associated the living king with a divinity and The use of the granted him divine powers. title "son of Re," beginning with Djedefre, eswith the most tablished a physical connection of the period. Finally, the dispowerful deity tinctive shape of the royal pyramid itself and its restriction to royal use distinguished the king's tomb from those of his courtiers, while its size further emphasized his divinity. The king built his personal political power by granting access 60 Posthumousreferences to Snefru have been collected by D. Wildung, Die Rolle dgyptischerKonige im Bewusstseinihrer Nachwelt:PosthumeQuellenuberdie Konige der erstenvierDynas-

tien,MAS17 (Berlin, 1969), 114-19. This may also represent the king's adoption of a divine prerogative.The first attested offering formula, in the tomb of Rahotep at Meydum, is built on the name of Anubis; the word nswtis substitutedfor the god's name by the time of Khufuat the latest, however.(Barta,Aufbauund Bedeutungder dgyptischenOpferformel,3-4.)

DavidLarkinhas suggested to me that the new differentiation in the shape and size of the royal tomb may have made the spatialdifferentiationless important.

JARCEXXX (1993)

54

to his tomb and his name, while simultaneously increasing the value of that access by the very enhancement of power that it paid for. The building of larger pyramidsthus provided Snefru and his successorswith symboliccurrency to pay for broader power and central control. The underlying motivation for these changes probablyagain relates to the shift of focus from Horus to Re, as the divinity represented by the king. The sun that embodied Re was certainly more distant than the falcon Horus from the Egyptians, and arguably from the king (since the king was equated with Horus, but was only Re's son); yet the sun clearly had a greater involvement with their everydaylives than the falcon. The sun's light and warmth contrasted implicitly with the darkness and cold of its absence; it was surely seen as a universallybeneficent force, rather than simply a powerful one. The sun's power influenced views of the afterlife, but it may also have inspired a new kind of relationship between the king and his people, in which he cared for them as well as ruling them. The appearance of husbands, wives and children together in the relief decoration and statuary of Fourth Dynasty tombs may also be connected with the cult of Re, though more subtly. In royal iconography, the king's family first appeared together (albeit at radically different scales) in Djoser's temple to Re at Heliopolis63 (see fig. 11). The cult of Re at Heliopolis was a family cult, involving a genealogicallyrelated ennead; and the king's connection with Re also had a genealogical basis- he was Re's son. The growth of the importance of Re and his cult seems to have brought about a new stress on family, children, and posterity. (The 63 W. S.

Smith, A History of Egyptian Sculptureand Painting

in the Old Kingdom(Boston, 1946) 113, fig. 48 right. The names, but not the figures, of Djoser's wife and daughter also appearon 79 re-used steles and markersat his mortuary complex (Firth and Quibell, TheStepPyramid,119, pls. 8687). A collection of four statuesof different sizes (ibid., 114, pl. 63 bottom), of which only the feet are preserved,might suggest that they were depicted as statues in the complex; but it is equallypossible that these statuesrepresent deities. Alreadyon one of the Djoserfragmentsfrom Heliopolis Geb, Shu and Seth seem to be represented.W. S. Smith, The Art and Architectureof Ancient Egypt, 2nd ed., revised by

W. K. Simpson (Harmondsworth,1981), 64.

Fig. 11. A fragmentfrom the templeofDjoser at Heliopolis, now in the Egyptian Museum, Turin. This drawing is based on a slide taken by the author.

older dynastic deities, Horus and Seth, in contrast, had no spouses or children to speak of.) A similar increase in emphasis on the wife and children of the king took place at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty along with the rise of another solar cult. 65W[ilfried] S[eipel], "Konigin,"LA III, col. 465, notes that the queen began to outrank the king's mother and took on more importantroles in royal iconographybeginning in the reign of Amenhotep III.

SOCIAL CHANGE

IN THE FOURTH

The ultimate origin of the new forms adopted for royal tomb complexes in the early Fourth Dynasty, by this analysis, resembles that of earlier analyses. The changes derive from the new association between the king and the sun god, an association which, it should perhaps be neither noted, my analysis nor the traditional interpretations explain. The value of the application of spatial analysis here lies in its elucidation of the intermediate effects of this association, and their wider consequences. This broader view of the architectural changes of the early Fourth Dynasty reveals that the new form of the royal tombs was not an isolated phenomenon, resulting from an esoteric philosophical and religious emphasis on the sun god that was limited to the king himself. Instead, the changes occurred in all levels of elite mortuary architecture, and represented the culmination of a larger, slower, and more far-reaching shift in the focus of the Egyptians, from the past to the future. This shift radically altered two funda-

DYNASTY

55

characteristics of the Egyptians' belief their system: expectations about life after death and their relationship to their king. In both of these areas, the change represented a departure from the backward-looking views of the first three dynasties towards a forward-looking dethat on a was pendence posterity, posterity produced by the family relationships that the sun cult stressed. Ironically, the endowments and service that this new view reperpetual mortuary in resulted a of ancestor quired proliferation cults, which came to dominate Egypt's society and economy, and ultimately shackled to the past the very posterity upon which they depended. In its initial effects, however, the burst of pyramid building that the new solar ideology produced at the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty seems to have been one of many "ratchets" that propelled a basically backwards-looking culture into the future. mental

Philadelphia,

PA